| DEC-001 | Engagement structure with Mario: decide paid development vs partnership (equity/revenue share) | (a) paid development per milestone (b) partnership equity/revenue share (c) hybrid: paid build + small equity kicker | cash-flow-now 0.30; upside 0.25; risk 0.30; relationship 0.15 | Deferred until ACT-001 (docs) and ACT-002 (scope conversation) complete — re-score with evidence; weights fixed before scoring | Paid wins if funding exists; partnership only competitive with written IP + vesting + validated product thesis | Evidence first; recommend selling the feasibility spike as paid work under any structure | 2026-09-12 | Parked-Zaid |
| DEC-002 | Technical approach: parametric/rule-based core with AI-assist (vs full ML reconstruction) | (a) pure ML 2D→3D (b) parametric core + AI-assist (c) manual-assisted tooling | feasibility 0.35; value-to-user 0.25; differentiation 0.20; maintainability 0.20 | HYBRID 4.3 / MANUAL 3.2 / PURE-ML 2.4 (provisional — confirm against the documents) | Pure-ML only wins if the docs reveal a constrained drawing family where ML is reliable | Hybrid is buildable at SME scale and keeps humans in the loop where reconstruction is unreliable | 2026-09-12 | Open |